Aa far as I know I was not conscious before I was born. We also know that conscious awareness evolves with the development of our bodies, namely our brains, and hence the reason why there is a huge difference in awareness between a baby and an adult. Thus, I can only conclude that death will be like the pre-birth state: non-existence.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Aa far as I know I was not conscious before I was born. We also know that conscious awareness evolves with the development of our bodies, namely our brains, and hence the reason why there is a huge difference in awareness between a baby and an adult. Thus, I can only conclude that death will be like the pre-birth state: non-existence.

take a WILD GUZZZ, wat if u forgot everything, wen u r a baby. i remember a short story about a baby who just born and story proceeds with the baby's thoughts. in it baby able to read others peoples thoughts and analyzing it, . it also give us a hint about how silly we (adults) r. funny story.

It was really could of been him, or it could have been a average DC. And it is very possible, the fact that people have such a dismal veiw on our life is a shame, but I suppose we all see when we die!

"External stimuli" can not tell you things you don't know, which I have read multiple dead people told lucid dreamers information they did not know.

Also there is a book called "Proof of Heaven", that shows quite well death is not the end of us. We continue on after death, despite a couple people's dismal veiws, the fluids in our brains aren't everything

You don't agree, but be careful that you don't sound like a 'missionary' Worldenterer; you know: 'you are wrong unless you believe what I believe ' (even if your 'religion' is Science) . Science doesn't know what consciousness is and freely admits this. Science is always altering previous 'viewpoints' based on new evidence; Science is not a static or dead discipline, and scientific theory is not proven fact. In fact 'Science' ( funny how we use that word itself as if it were a 'god' or religion) did not 'believe' Lucid Dreaming was possible until it was finally 'proven'. The best scientists are not afraid to wonder about things. That's the root of creative thinking. Otherwise the rigid 'rules' of what you are 'allowed' to think will result in no progress at all. (And 'consciousness' and a sense of self ( the ego) are not the same thing. Read Neil Turok (theoretical Physicist) Massey Lectures for more on this .)

mia wrote:You don't agree, but be careful that you don't sound like a 'missionary' Worldenterer; you know: 'you are wrong unless you believe what I believe ' (even if your 'religion' is Science) . Science doesn't know what consciousness is and freely admits this. Science is always altering previous 'viewpoints' based on new evidence; Science is not a static or dead discipline, and scientific theory is not proven fact. In fact 'Science' ( funny how we use that word itself as if it were a 'god' or religion) did not 'believe' Lucid Dreaming was possible until it was finally 'proven'. The best scientists are not afraid to wonder about things. That's the root of creative thinking. Otherwise the rigid 'rules' of what you are 'allowed' to think will result in no progress at all.

Science has not figured out how consciousness arises but it has pretty much established that a functional brain is needed for its emergence. It is also the only method of inquiry doing anything about trying to solve the "self" puzzle.

Scientific theory should not be mistaken with our everyday usage of the word "theory" either. In science, a theory is rich and full of calculations and predictions (unlike the feeble arguments from hypotheses). Scientific theories are strong in content and lead to falsifiable predictions. This does not mean that they are liable to be proved false. It means that the theory is subject to experimentation which will either confirm or rule out its specific elements.

Science has no dogmas. It will always adapt and follow the evidence according to discoveries. Science deserves praise because it really is the best method we have with which to study reality.

After all, you only have science to thank for the fact that you have vehicles, phones, ipads, laptops, PCs, Macs, TVs, stereos, and Internet connection which ironically enough enables you to post here and express your dislike for science.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Dislike? You are mistaken. Certainly not. Just the opposite. I am suggesting that we need to be circumspect enough not to make it a 'religion' and 'defend' theory with the zealousness of a 'believer'; it would be a great disservice to Science to do that. And the track record in scientific research in universities is not quite so clean as you imply; theories have been defended to the teeth in the name of funding and reputations, even at the expense of 'better science', among individual researchers. It's really 'dog eat dog' sometimes. It too is sadly subjected to the all too human ego and need for self advancement; and much valid research has been dropped for lack of funding ( most often driven by business who contribute funding and then have a big say in what is researched). The whole system has as many flaws as any human endeavor.

The key to creativity is to remove the watchers from the gates, and realize how free you really are.

I agree with both of you, science is the best tool we have to study reality.

However, the best tool we have isn't exactly great at doing it's job, but it does the job none the less. Now I love science, I love when science and my "near-religious" beliefs work together, which they often do!

The only problem is, science is left brain. Pure left brain, but we have a right brain too! And I find when we look strictly from the left brain (as science does) it limits what we can understand. I am what I consider a good balance of both, although growing up science was my only answer. I have never followed religion, so I used to be completely left brain as well. I sounded alot like you in fact, but now, I've come to use my right brain a little more and my left brain a little less. I question everything and remain skeptical. We need balance though, we need to understand through both sides of our brains, not just one or the other! Which goes for the pure right brained people as well, of course.